Subject
Fw: Fw: Lolita and Pete Townshend
From
Date
Body
EDNOTE. I'm not sure what Erin McLean is distressed about. I barely know who
Mr. Townshend is and have no interest in his sexual proclivities. Rather I
was bemused about "the forces of evil" tapping in on Lolita web searches.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Erin McLean" <erin@community.hipmama.com>
>
> I'm not buying it. Pete's story changes as to why he went searching for
"boys" on the internet, and I'm sure we can all attest that, contrary to his
claims, it is perfectly easy to research Nabokov without being "forced" to
pay for child porn "Lolita" sites. Give me a break.
> Erin McLean
>
> --- "D. Barton Johnson" <chtodel@cox.net> wrote:
> >EDNOTE. I'm sure the nascent Office of Homeland Security will find the
> >frequency of occurrence of "Lolita" in NABOKV-L exchanges to be
suspicious.
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "David Morris" <fqmorris@yahoo.com>
> >> ----------------- Message requiring your approval (25
> >lines) ------------------
> >> http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/
> >>
> >> "[The above provides a link to] an article about kiddie porn that Pete
> >> Townshend posted to his website last August, then removed for legal
> >reasons; it
> >> is now being circulated via e-mail by the critic/reporter Dave Marsh.
For
> >> whatever it's worth, the piece fits the musician's version of events."
> >>
> >> An exerpt from the article:
> >> "I am also aware - as are most people today I think - of how easy it is
to
> >> trigger the attention of an internet service provider (ISP) when
certain
> >> 'buzz-words' are used in a search. These are, in effect, words - or
> >> combinations of words - that alert attention at the ISP. [...]
> >> The Guardian newspaper revealed that www.uksearchterms.com listed
'lolita'
> >high
> >> on the list of the most searched words in the UK ('sex' is often No.1).
It
> >> seemed to me that there was some hypocrisy going on. Who were all these
> >people
> >> typing 'lolita' into their browsers? They were surely not all
paedophiles.
> >They
> >> may have been vigilantes. I'm fairly certain that in most cases they
were
> >> simply curious of what they might find. The terrible part is that what
> >they
> >> found on the internet will almost have certainly found them by return."
> >>
> >>
> >> __________________________________________________
> >> Do you Yahoo!?
> >> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
> >> http://mailplus.yahoo.com
>
> _____________________________________________________________
> hipMama.com = Raucous + Opinionated + Iconoclastic
>
> _____________________________________________________________
> Select your own custom email address for FREE! Get you@yourchoice.com w/No
Ads, 6MB, POP & more! http://www.everyone.net/selectmail?campaign=tag
Mr. Townshend is and have no interest in his sexual proclivities. Rather I
was bemused about "the forces of evil" tapping in on Lolita web searches.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Erin McLean" <erin@community.hipmama.com>
>
> I'm not buying it. Pete's story changes as to why he went searching for
"boys" on the internet, and I'm sure we can all attest that, contrary to his
claims, it is perfectly easy to research Nabokov without being "forced" to
pay for child porn "Lolita" sites. Give me a break.
> Erin McLean
>
> --- "D. Barton Johnson" <chtodel@cox.net> wrote:
> >EDNOTE. I'm sure the nascent Office of Homeland Security will find the
> >frequency of occurrence of "Lolita" in NABOKV-L exchanges to be
suspicious.
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "David Morris" <fqmorris@yahoo.com>
> >> ----------------- Message requiring your approval (25
> >lines) ------------------
> >> http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/
> >>
> >> "[The above provides a link to] an article about kiddie porn that Pete
> >> Townshend posted to his website last August, then removed for legal
> >reasons; it
> >> is now being circulated via e-mail by the critic/reporter Dave Marsh.
For
> >> whatever it's worth, the piece fits the musician's version of events."
> >>
> >> An exerpt from the article:
> >> "I am also aware - as are most people today I think - of how easy it is
to
> >> trigger the attention of an internet service provider (ISP) when
certain
> >> 'buzz-words' are used in a search. These are, in effect, words - or
> >> combinations of words - that alert attention at the ISP. [...]
> >> The Guardian newspaper revealed that www.uksearchterms.com listed
'lolita'
> >high
> >> on the list of the most searched words in the UK ('sex' is often No.1).
It
> >> seemed to me that there was some hypocrisy going on. Who were all these
> >people
> >> typing 'lolita' into their browsers? They were surely not all
paedophiles.
> >They
> >> may have been vigilantes. I'm fairly certain that in most cases they
were
> >> simply curious of what they might find. The terrible part is that what
> >they
> >> found on the internet will almost have certainly found them by return."
> >>
> >>
> >> __________________________________________________
> >> Do you Yahoo!?
> >> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
> >> http://mailplus.yahoo.com
>
> _____________________________________________________________
> hipMama.com = Raucous + Opinionated + Iconoclastic
>
> _____________________________________________________________
> Select your own custom email address for FREE! Get you@yourchoice.com w/No
Ads, 6MB, POP & more! http://www.everyone.net/selectmail?campaign=tag